Kent Hovind, a former high school science teacher turned creation science evangelist, said that evolution is the "dumbest and most dangerous theory on planet Earth" at a program in the Union on Dec. 6.
Posted on 12/17/2005 3:58:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry
A former high school science teacher turned creation science evangelist told an audience at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee last Tuesday that evolution is the “dumbest and most dangerous theory on planet Earth.”
Kent Hovind, founder of Creation Science Evangelism, presented “Creation or Evolution … Which Has More Merit?” to a standing-room only audience in the Union Ballroom on Dec. 6. The event was sponsored by the Apologetics Association, the organization that brought Baptist minister Tim Wilkins to UWM to speak about homosexuality in October.
Members of the Apologetics Association (AA) contacted biology, chemistry and geology professors at UWM and throughout the UW System, inviting them to debate Hovind for an honorarium of $200 to be provided to the individual or group of individuals who agreed.
Before the event began, the “No-Debater List,” which was comprised of slides listing the names of UWM science professors who declined the invitation, was projected behind the stage.
Dustin Wales, AA president, said it was his “biggest disappointment” that no professor agreed to debate Hovind.
“No professor wanted to defend his side,” he said. “I mean, we had seats reserved for their people … ’cause I know one objection could have been ‘Oh, it’s just a bunch of Christians.’ So we had seats reserved for them to bring people to make sure that it’s somewhat more equal, not just all against one. And still nobody would do it.”
Biology professor Andrew Petto said: “It is a pernicious lie that the Apologetics (Association) is spreading that no one responded to the challenge. Many of us (professors) did respond to the challenge; what we responded was, ‘No, thank you.’ ”
Petto, who has attended three of Hovind’s “performances,” said that because Hovind presents “misinterpretations, half truths and outright lies,” professors at UWM decided not to accept his invitation to a debate.
“In a nutshell, debates like this do not settle issues of scientific understanding,” he said. “Hovind and his arguments are not even in the same galaxy as legitimate scientific discourse. This is why the faculty here has universally decided not to engage Hovind. The result would be to give the appearance of a controversy where none exists.”
He added, “The faculty on campus is under no obligation to waste its time supporting Hovind’s little charade.”
Hovind, however, is used to being turned down. Near the end of his speech, he said, “Over 3,000 professors have refused to debate me. Why? Because I’m not afraid of them.”
Hovind began his multimedia presentation by asserting that evolution is the “dumbest and most dangerous” theory used in the scientific community, but that he is not opposed to science.
“Our ministry is not against science, but against using lies to prove things,” he said. He followed this statement by citing biblical references to lies, which were projected onto screens behind him.
Hovind said: “I am not trying to get evolution out of schools or to get creation in. We are trying to get lies out of textbooks.” He added that if removing “lies” from textbooks leaves no evidence for evolutionists’ theory, then they should “get a new theory.”
He cited numerous state statutes that require that textbooks be accurate and up-to-date, but said these laws are clearly not enforced because the textbooks are filled with lies and are being taught to students.
Petto said it is inevitable that textbooks will contain some errors.
“Sometimes, this is an oversight. Sometimes it is the result of the editorial and revision process. Sometimes it is the result of trying to portray a rich and complex idea in a very few words,” he said.
The first “lie” Hovind presented concerned the formation of the Grand Canyon. He said that two people can look at the canyon. The person who believes in evolution would say, “Wow, look what the Colorado River did for millions and millions of years.” The “Bible-believing Christian” would say, “Wow, look what the flood did in about 30 minutes.”
To elaborate, Hovind discussed the geologic column — the chronologic arrangement of rock from oldest to youngest in which boundaries between different eras are marked by a change in the fossil record. He explained that it does not take millions of years to form layers of sedimentary rock.
“You can get a jar of mud out of your yard, put some water in it, shake it up, set it down, and it will settle out into layers for you,” he said. Hovind used this concept of hydrologic sorting to argue that the biblical flood is what was responsible for the formation of the Grand Canyon’s layers of sedimentary rock.
Hovind also criticized the concept of “micro-evolution,” or evolution on a small, species-level scale. He said that micro-evolution is, in fact, scientific, observable and testable. But, he said, it is also scriptural, as the Bible says, “They bring forth after his kind.”
Therefore, according to the Bible and micro-evolution, dogs produce a variety of dogs and they all have a common ancestor — a dog.
Hovind said, however, Charles Darwin made a “giant leap of faith and logic” from observing micro-evolution into believing in macro-evolution, or evolution above the species level. Hovind said that according to macro-evolution, birds and bananas are related if one goes back far enough in time, and “the ancestor ultimately was a rock.”
He concluded his speech by encouraging students to personally remove the lies from their textbooks and parents to lobby their school board for accurate textbooks.
“Tear that page out of your book,” he said. “Would you leave that in there just to lie to the kids?”
Petto said Hovind believes the information in textbooks to be “lies” because his determination is grounded in faith, not science.
“Make no mistake, this is not a determination made on the scientific evidence, but one in which he has decided on the basis of faith alone that the Bible is correct, and if the Bible is correct, then science must be wrong,” he said.
Petto said Hovind misinterprets scientific information and then argues against his misinterpretation.
“That is, of course, known as the ‘straw man’ argument — great debating strategy, but nothing to do with what scientists actually say or do,” he said. “The bottom line here is that the science is irrelevant to his conclusions.”
Another criticism of Hovind’s presentation is his citation of pre-college textbooks. Following the event, an audience member said, “I don’t think using examples of grade school and high school biology can stand up to evolution.”
Petto called this an “interesting and effective rhetorical strategy” and explained that Hovind is not arguing against science, but the “textbook version” of science.
“The texts are not presenting the research results of the scientific community per se, but digesting and paraphrasing it in a way to make it more effective in learning science,” he said. “So, what (Hovind) is complaining about is not what science says, but what the textbooks say that science says.”
Petto said this abbreviated version of scientific research is due, in part, to the editorial and production processes, which impose specific limits on what is included.
He added that grade school and high school textbooks tend to contain very general information about evolution and pressure from anti-evolutionists has weakened evolutionary discussion in textbooks.
“Lower-level texts … tend to be more general in their discussions of evolution and speak more vaguely of ‘change over time’ and adaptation and so on,” he said. “Due to pressure by anti-evolutionists, textbook publishers tend to shy away from being ‘too evolutionary’ in their texts … The more pressure there is on schools and publishers, the weaker the evolution gets, and the weaker it gets, the more likely that it will not do a good job of representing the current consensus among biologists.”
Hovind has a “standing offer” of $250,000 for “anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” According to Hovind’s Web site, the offer “demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.”
The Web site, www.drdino.com, says, “Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.”
Wales said the AA’s goal in bringing Hovind to UWM was “to crack the issue on campus” and bring attention to the fallibility of evolution.
“The ultimate goal was to say that, ‘Gosh, evolution isn’t as concrete as you say it is, and why do you get to teach everyone this non-concrete thing and then not defend it when someone comes and says your wrong?’ ” he said. “It’s just absurd.”
Name...State...
So many demands...typical of evo fascists and their mania to maintain power over the public school science classes.
You are so obvious...really.
Your rejection of God is between you and Him.
I believe in God's word - Odin's that is. Why do you believe your fairy tale is any more valid than mine?
Simple, you have just believed bogus evidence brought forward by people who want the world without its Creator.
I've posted more than enough as to why evo is washed up...just like those who are fascinated by its charms.
I believe I owe you a friendly fire alert. Back up, revise, and extend :)
No, he couldn't. He has some self-respect.
Some texts which don’t use Haeckel’s forged drawings, still use his discredited theory. One of those is the current (1998) National Association of Science teacher’s guide, “Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science”. "
In my post 350 I provided you with an on-line link to that document, and asked you to show where it uses "his discredited theory." You have yet to do so. Please either provide the text (and link) backing up your claim, or withdraw it.
"If that is how many believe evolution, then they are following satan."
It's called making a pact with the horny one. And they, evolutionists, have.
"If that is how many believe evolution, then they are following satan."
There is a huge spiritual void in them that a Mack truck has no problems going through. They try to fill the void with psychobabble evolution theory, but it's all in vain, the void and the accompanying fear remains.
"Some day soon ... you're in for a nasty surprise - eternity where the sun doesn't shine."
Caron (the demon)is waiting for them to transport these unhappy souls to the other side of the Acheron (a river) to experience in darkness the pains of hell.
"I believe in God's word - Odin's that is. Why do you believe your fairy tale is any more valid than mine?"
You are confessing that your belief system is a fairy tale?
Wow! A High School science teacher! Well I guess all the Yale PhD's are no match for this genius.
Oh, Hovind's here. Hell, he's probably on this thread.
"Great Moments in Evolution" by Gary Larson.
Anybody got this one. I haven't been able to find it yet.
Here is the difference. I believe the Bible. I believe God's Word to be true.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica,
in that they received the word with all readiness of mind,
and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Acts 17:11
The Pope and the Catholic Church can not make the same claim.
Read it and weep, and if you have a problem with the pope and the catholic church rejecting the Bible please take it up with them.
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html
Please look back on this thread and see where the hate actually lies. It is quite clear. That is why post #70, for example, was removed by the moderators. (References to its content are in some following posts.) I have yet to see the kind of hate directed at "evilutionists" from our side. Scorn, derision, and outright laughter--yes, but not hate. And there is a difference.
As far as your comment that "Evos have decided that undermining Christian origin beliefs is their primary mission"--this is false.
I have mentioned on these threads that I spent half of my graduate school time and half of my Ph.D. study on fossil man/human osteology, and never once did creation science come up (ID had not been invented at the time). There was simply no mention of "undermining Christian origin beliefs." Science does science, and (hopefully) religion does religion.
I don't know where you are getting your information about "evos" but I can tell you from my experience that a lot of it is simply wrong.
" Your rejection of God is between you and Him."
Your rejection of the physical evidence is your own business.
Didn't answer my #559 either. So, I guess there's no answer.
Self-respect is for losers; you wouldn't see a Rockfeller (John D, not his wimpy decendents) behaving in such a fashion. They would seize a market opportunity and exploit for all its worth. There are millions of Cleti out there just waiting to help you retire early. (Or finance the next chair at MIT.)
Sounds like a friggin Nazi tactic. How despicable. There is no conlict between Creation and Evolution. You can easily believe in both, as do I. Drooling idiots like this boob do nothing but support the most negative stereotypes of Christians, like those morons who lie their way through natural history museums to the poor children who don't know any better and--because of their false teachers--never will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.